Is Water-Baptism Required for Christians?

Question: I am struggling with some matters on baptism and was wondering if you
could help me settle some issues in my mind. A very doctrinal friend of
mine argues against believer's water baptism being practiced in the
church age after the completed canon of Scripture. He has also stated
"there is not one command in the New Testament commanding the believer
to be baptized". Subsequently, I went home and pulled out a few books to
consider his claim. After looking for a while (and developing a
headache), I came across several NT passages where the command to be
baptized in water is given:

Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized
[aorist/passive/imperative] in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit.
Acts 2:38

'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized
[aorist/middle/imperative], and wash away your sins, calling on His
name.'
Acts 22:16

The first passage (as you are aware) is where Peter is preaching the
first message in the church age. The clear command to be baptized is
obvious. Does this command still carry weight for the believer today?
The second passage is where Paul is recounting his Damascus road
experience and where the Lord commands him to be baptized. I think it is
strange that the Lord would command him to be baptized before calling on
His name. There are other passages to consider too (Acts 10:48;
Matt.28:16-20; - where a command seems to be in view, and the latter by
our Lord; and 1Cor.1:17; Eph.4:5 - with neither of these last two
passages seeming to rule out water baptism). What do you think? Do these
commands fall into our own day?

Thank you for your service.

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful e-mail. I well appreciate the godly
fear of wanting to do right by scripture in every way, and whether this
answer strikes you as right or wrong, I want to commend you for keeping
yourself open to what the Bible has to say (whether or not it confirms
or confutes previous opinions). The day we lapse into comfortable views
and stop listening to the Word itself - really listening - is the day
our spiritual decline begins. True spiritual growth is not an easy
process, but all those who respond from an open heart to our Lord's
words in Matthew 7:24-27, both to listen to Him and to put into practice
what He commands, are those who truly "build on the rock".

To begin, I should make it clear that ichthys.com is not
connected with any other ministry or any other personality, either
officially or unofficially. Nor does the teaching presented here reflect
anything but my own individual exposition of the Word of God. Naturally,
I have antecedents (see "antecedents of Ichthys"), as we all do, but
none of the teaching from this ministry (to include this response)
should be construed as anything but my own (i.e., I don't represent
anyone else) - although I do hope, and pray, and strive to ensure that
they accurately reflect the truth of the Word of God (this is my sole
concern).

The above is certainly germane to the topic of baptism. For there are
few other subjects in the history of the Church which have been more
divisive, and that fact is a reflection of the rapidity with which
organizations in particular jump from careful consideration of scripture
to defense of tradition (a charge from which few Christian groups are
immune, even those whose tradition is very recent).

Let us start with some pertinent principles. First, Paul's statement
in 1Cor.1:17 that he was sent to preach the gospel not to baptize is
very telling. It certainly does not say that water-baptism is wrong, but
it is indeed a very strange statement to make if it were, in Paul's view
of things, a mandate that all believers must be water-baptized. It is
also true as you say in regard to Eph.4:5 that this verse does not rule
out water-baptism. It does, however, state (on a par with there being
only One Lord Jesus Christ) that there is indeed only "one" baptism. At
the very least, this ought to mean that there is only one baptism of any
true spiritual consequence, and, if that is true, no serious Christian
would venture to place water-baptism in this premier position over and
against the baptism of the Spirit.

Clearly, water-baptism is not and could not be any sort of means or
requirement for a salvation that is based upon grace through faith
(Eph.2:8-9) - which begs the question of why then there should be a
mandate to be baptized with water, especially since it is the Spirit
baptism to which John and Jesus looked forward and told us to esteem
(Mk.1:8; Lk.24:48; Jn.15:26; 16:5-15; Acts 1:4-5; 1:7-8), and since
water baptism has been so historically divisive, so prone to the
inducement of guilt and fear for the un-baptized, and so engendering of
false confidence in works and rituals for the baptized.

In the early church-visible, yes, there is no question that
water-baptism was the rule, and that is evident as far back as the
apostolic fathers (cf. in particular the "Didache"). But that first
Church era, the era of Ephesus, was very clearly one of stagnancy in
spiritual growth (they had abandoned this "first love" of the truth),
and was truncated after a bare 12 years as a result (see The Coming
Tribulation, part 2A: "The Seven Churches of Revelation"). In light of
this, to build doctrine on what we know of the practices of this early,
transitional era, is a major albeit common fallacy. It is also worth
pointing out that for much the greater part of the past two millennia,
infant baptism by sprinkling has been by far the dominant form of
baptism and was for the most part accepted as valid and the only baptism
needed. So that for the perhaps the majority of the Church Age's
Christians, the question "should I be water-baptized?" never came up at
all. Even in the case of those who now find a need for adult
water-baptism by whatever method, I would imagine that even they would
be reluctant to cast a universal shroud of doubt over the depth or
genuineness of the faith of nearly all the believers who lived from the
earliest days down until the fifteenth century (and many since as well,
of course).

As to the examples you cite in the book of Acts, it is likewise a
major fallacy to build doctrine exclusively upon the historical reports
therein. Luke reports the truth through the Spirit - even when it is an
accurate account of wrong-headed behavior (cf. the election of Matthias:
see
Peter #2). This is certainly true in the case of water-baptism. The
assumption on the part of even the apostles in the early going that
water-baptism is a natural thing to do for those who accept Christ
proceeds from an as yet incomplete understanding of the new reality of
the cross and resurrection on the one hand, and of the consequent
baptism of the Spirit on the other. A good example of this is that fact
that even on a subject as critical as bringing salvation to the gentiles
- the main point of this current age of the Church - even well after
Pentecost Peter still required special instruction, circumstances and
help before he realized the truth that this salvation was not only for
Jews (and had to defend his actions later against others: Acts 10-11).
Paul, too, was at first most solicitous of the elders in Jerusalem, but
would come to stand with the truth against all tradition and authority
in due time (cf. Gal.1-2; esp.2:11-14). And so it would seem imprudent
to conclude that just because believers, even apostles, are occasionally
involved in water-baptism, that the practice was necessarily the result
of specific instructions as opposed to the continuing of a ritual
tradition which had already been superseded by reality (my own view as
it is no doubt clear by now).

One of the passages you mention, Acts 22:16, clearly falls into this
category, for it is not a quote of the words of our Lord, but of
Ananias' conversation with Paul. It therefore reflects Ananias' (as yet
not completely enlightened) thinking on these matters.

This brings us to the consideration of
Matthew 28:19-20, which is really the crux of the entire issue. For,
no matter what we might feel about it, even if water-baptism does not
seem to make theological sense, if our Lord were really commanding us to
be water-baptized, that would certainly settle the issue. In fact, that
is not at all what this passage, an admittedly difficult one to
interpret, really relates. What this passage actually commands is for us
to "make disciples" (the only imperative in the Greek), that is, to
teach mankind about Jesus Christ, how to come to Him and how to follow
Him. The two participles ("baptizing" and "teaching") are clearly
instrumental in nature (i.e., they show the method of carrying out the
order: "by baptizing" and "by teaching").
"Baptizing" and "teaching" therefore reflect the means to these two
parts of the process, namely 1) entering into Christ, and 2) properly
following Him thereafter. "Baptizing them into the Name of ..." thus
must refer to the mediation of the gospel message by which we all are
baptized by the Spirit through faith into all three Persons of the
Trinity (Rom.6:3; cf. Is.30:27), while "teaching them" clearly concerns
the post-salvation process of growth and discipleship which is equally
essential. Beyond all question, it is the baptism of the Spirit which
places us into union with God, union with Christ - and it is the
indwelling Holy Spirit which is the pledge of this (2Cor.1:21-22; Eph.1:13-14; 4:30). Water-baptism has
nothing to do with either. Therefore, in my view, the main point behind
the baptism referred to in Matthew 28:19 is the same as the one made in
1st Corinthians 12:13 where we are all "baptized into one Body (of
Christ, His Person, His Name)".

It is well to note here that Matthew 28:19-20 is not our Lord Jesus
Christ's last communication with His disciples. For that mandate was
given in Galilee. But we know that Jesus ascended into heaven from
Jerusalem, from the Mount of Olives, the very place to which He will
return at the end of this Age at the conclusion of the Tribulation
(Lk.24:48; Acts 1:4-5; 1:7-8). Here are Christ's final words to them and
to us before He returned to the Father:

The significance of the symbolism of water-baptism (excluding the
unique case of the water-baptism of Christ which portrays His death for
our sins) is essentially two-fold: 1) it portrays the individual's
repentance, turning away from sin and death and toward God instead (cf.
Acts 22:16); and 2) the pouring out of the Spirit which "baptizes us"
into Christ (cf. Acts 19:5). But in the passages above our Lord is
talking about actual repentance and the actual
pouring out of the Spirit – the reality in each case clearly being the
only really important thing (not the ritual which represents them). In
Acts chapter 10, the gentiles who were listening to Peter repented and
believed just as soon as the gospel message passed his lips, and the
Spirit fell upon them in dramatic fashion (Acts 10:39-46). To which
Peter remarks "can anyone keep these people from being baptized with
water now? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." To which
we may well ask, what was the added benefit of water-baptism now that
these gentiles had 1) repented and believed and been saved, and 2) been
baptized with the Spirit, baptized into the Person of Jesus Christ?
Certainly in this case (and in every subsequent case I might add), it
was a matter of mere ritual following powerful reality, and while a
consideration of this passage does not necessarily mark out
water-baptism as improper, it certainly does at least suggest that it
was an after-thought that could in no way compare with the baptism they
had already undergone.

Taking all this into consideration in light of our Lord's final words
in the Luke and Acts passages quoted above where He stresses the reality
of repentance-faith and the reality of Spirit-baptism (with no mention
of water-baptism), I believe we would be in great and dangerous error to
take the clearly parallel Matthew 28:19-20 passage "baptizing them into
the Name" as purely or even predominantly concerned with water-baptism
(and should instead see it, as explained above, as mediating the baptism
of the Spirit by proclamation of the gospel). All indications are that
this passage is referring to the reality of our union with Him and with
the Father and with the Spirit through faith and through the baptism
that really makes a difference to our Christian lives and eternal
futures, the baptism of the Spirit. This, after all, is exactly what
John had predicted: "I baptize you with water for repentance .... He
will baptize you with the Holy Spirit - and with fire" (Matt.3:11).

1st Peter 3:21 is also pertinent here, a passage which indicates
exactly what we have been discussing above. Later in his life, Peter
came to understand this issue very clearly (as Paul had: 1Cor.1:17), and
was prompted to discuss the matter, possibly also as Paul had from
personal observation of the questionable influence that the continued
use of this ritual was having in the Church:

We may compare Paul's injunctions against the continued participation
in Jewish temple ritual which is the whole theme of the book of Hebrews.
No true restoration is possible for those who "continue to crucify the
Son of God afresh, exposing Him to open shame" (Heb.6:6). This is a
change for him, of course, with Hebrews having been written after the
incidents in Jerusalem which led to Paul's captivity. He may not have
fully understood that sponsoring those young men and their vows and
making sacrifice was wrong at that time, but he certainly proclaims it
as wrong in Hebrews. There is a parallel here to baptism, for just as
continuing with animal sacrifices has the effect of saying Jesus' death
was of no effect, so there is a sense in which water-baptism seems to be
saying that the baptism of the Spirit never happened (in both cases the
ritual looked forward to a far greater reality). Once this principle is
understood (as it was not at first in the earliest days of the Church),
are we to operate as if we did not in fact understand?

Therefore there is a sense in which water-baptism may indeed be an
offense for those with knowledge (e.g., Paul and Peter after the early
days: 1Cor.1:17; 1Pet.3:21). It can also be dangerous for those without
it. For the early Church may be forgiven for failing to understand that
this was a ritual now replaced by reality, a shadow of the true pouring
out of the Spirit (cf. Heb.10:1). But for us, how can it be justified,
especially if all we are really operating on is fear? The fear of the
Lord is indeed healthily (Ps.19:9; Prov.1:7; Eccl.5:7; Is.11:2-3), but
our faith in Him and His Word must be strong enough to give us the
courage to triumph over all other fears (Rom.8:28-39). Nearly two
millennia of tradition across the board can still be wrong (and, sadly,
that is more often the fact than not). This, then, is my main objection
to a point of view that water-baptism is something we ought to indulge
in as Christians. For, whether overtly expressed or not, it is
essentially a means of providing a "feeling" of security in salvation.
That is a terribly dangerous proposition in and of itself, and is
especially so when one considers that this "security blanket" is always
administered by an organization (a fact which has the effect of shifting
loyalty and confidence away from Christ and to that organization
instead; see Peter #27,
"Three Doctrines which Threaten Faith"). Indeed, over the course of
history the controversy and the false teachings revolving around
water-baptism have led many astray from the faith.

Walking in the Spirit with whom we have been baptized is not always
easy. Jesus, after all, told us to count the cost before making the
commitment to follow Him (Matt.7:14) - there would be costs. To submit
to water-baptism in order to fit into a particular organization is easy
enough, for it is always easy to rely on some ritual well within one's
own control. What is often not so easy, however, is following the Lamb
wherever He leads, even when this takes us as it took Him outside the
camp to suffer at the hands of those who place false traditions in the
place of truth.

Let me close by returning to the words of that most famous "baptist",
John, in Matthew 3:11: "I baptize you with water ... He [the Messiah]
will baptize you with the Holy Spirit". For, indeed, it is exactly this
ministry of the Spirit which is so important in Jesus' life and
ministry, and it is not water baptism, but the baptism of the Spirit
which Jesus emphasizes over and over (e.g., Lk.4:18; 11:13; 12:12;
24:48; Jn.7:39; 14:15-26; 15:26; 16:5-15; 20:22; Acts 1:4-8, etc.). The
emphasis in the epistles is also consistently focused upon Spirit
baptism rather than water baptism (which is hardly even mentioned). Even
in our famous passage on Paul's regrets about water-baptism, we find in
1st Corinthians 2:4 a clear contrasting of the power of the
Spirit on the one hand with earthly wisdom as demonstrated by earthly
proofs such as water baptism on the other (cf. with 1Cor.1:17). Against
this universal emphasis and testimony (once we take the examples in Acts
as historical rather than dispositive), there is really only Matt.28:19,
the meaning of which we have discussed at length above. All things
considered, it would seem prudent for us as followers of Christ to place
the emphasis where He placed it, where the Word of God places it,
namely, on the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I apologize for the fact that this is not an exhaustive exposition of
the topic. Eventually, that will be available in part 6 of the Bible
Basics series (a long time in the future at this point, I fear).
However, you may also find the following e-mail responses helpful to
supplement the details: